Britain’s Choice

Duly Noted by George HandleryDuly Noted

Evidently, Britain’s decision about her continued EU membership (“Brexit”) is crucial. Obama’s threatening butting in on the debate underlines this assessment.

The consequences go beyond the “Europes”. (Yes, plural!) The term reflects that there are several Europes. One is the developed Atlantic West. Then there is the “South”; wobbly although it enjoyed the “north’s” opportunities and escaped Soviet rule. With local consent, it remained misgoverned. Lastly, there is the “new” Europe, of the “Visegrád Group” (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary.) England’s special tag expresses her island-geography and tradition. Their combination enabled her to defy, Spanish domination, then French tutelage, and Nazi conquest.

Recently, a new threat arose. It aims to unify Europe through the bureaucratic centralism of an “ever closer union”. Peripheral Norway is not a member, and the encircled and extorted Swiss, continue to resist. The region’s highest GDP society is defiant because its federal government by plebiscite clashes with the EU’s system.

While the belt is tightened by “Brussels”, the pressure hurts. Additionally, the mismanagement of the € -the common currency- threatens an economic crisis. Add the mishandling of the migrant question and the rise of Islamic enclaves. This nurtures doubts –in the people but not the elite- about the union in its present form.

Alarmed, official Britain has expressed concerns. PM Cameron, alleging that Britain needed exemptions from EU rules pertaining to migration and aliens, turned to Brussels to achieve corrections. He also complained that GB does not get a hearing from the dominating French-German tandem. (Imagine how the small states feel about that!) He used the plebiscite about a Brexit (British exit) to get concessions.

That threat led to miniscule indulgences that make them easy to grant without encouraging new demands by others. These dispensations were depicted as major concessions by Cameron who desires a “stay”. Beyond the “PR”, what was given is, once the PR is penetrated, minor and even that little is conditional. Britain does not have, to quote Orbán, “control over those that are to live with us”.

The terms of the deal: No instant welfare is to be extended to aliens attracted by low-wage jobs. Limiting the entrants from the EU that stay in England are permitted. This is an “emergency break”, and not a right to set an upper limit for migration as support payments which cannot be cut after an initial period. These grants reduce Britain’s attraction but do not extend an absolute right to control immigration. Additionally, while vague, the terms are conditional, and subject to “re-negotiation” even if the deal enables both sides to make claims what helps their case.

Although Obama opined that Britain needs to „help lead a strong Europe”, the EU is not run with London’s input. That is a fact, even if the Obama threatens that, in case of the Brexit, the US prefers to deal with „Europe” rather than the Brits. What a nice funeral oration over the grave of the „special relationship”! We know the background tune is from the music of the funeral of the US-Israel relationship.

Paradoxically, a Brexit is essential to save „Europe”. EU elites must be convinced that Europe cannot be a USA-style union  -the cases are too dissimilar. Needed is what is makeable. That is a realistic „community” of independent nations that voluntarily coordinate their activities.

As thing are, the batle of Britain mus be re-refought. Not against Messerschmidts but against the bureacratic centralism of a political class that seeks power over a state without a nation, and that is to be exercised without a popular mandate. Only if Britain rebels by leaving, can we stop imposed unity, and the attack upon distinct nations and limited government. But for small concessions made for appearance sake, from within, England cannot reform today’s EU. To be taken seriously, London needs to exit the condominium. Doing so will additionally bolster those that now lack the power to correct the course. Without a Brexit, Eurocracy will not take reforms seriously.

Britain’s position within the EU, and the case for her “leave”, can be illustrated by two ignored examples. One is that of Switzerland, the other one is the Visegrád Group represented by Hungary. True, these are small entities Europe ignores and that helps to overlook the inherent lessons. Two times two is four, even if a 98 pound weakling whispers it, while a Sumo wrestler brays “five”. The wise detect their fate when others are punched. Remember when, in the thirties, Ethiopia’s Haile Selassie, warned the blind and the deaf in the League of Nations “it is us now, but you are next”?

The Swiss-Hungarian-Visegrád cases offer insights that reveal what is wrong in the EU, and tells what Britain can expect once she cannot afford to bail out.

The Swiss case. Switzerland is not a member. However, she is bound, in exchange for easier trade, to integrate EU decisions into her national laws. Furthermore, the 8 million country contributes a billion to upgrade poorer EU members. (Shock yourself; extrapolate the numbers to your local ones!) A problem: expensive local workers are to compete with cheap EU entrants. Consider that Swiss wages are significantly above, for instance, German salaries. Mainly, the EU demands that the Swiss accommodate EU job-seekers according to terms made by the EU.

The resulting crime rate and abuse of the welfare system provoked a referendum. It made the reassertion of the national control of settlement, welfare, and repatriation into law. Egged on by local elites –the reds, their green subdivision, and the left-liberals- Brussels refuses to accept the people’s decision. While 25% of the inhabitants are aliens, if the Swiss implement the control of the inflow, the treaty that regulates her nexus to the encircling EU, will be canceled. This translates into a threat of economic ruin through strangulation.

Notice this: What EU-member Britain has received as a temporary concession is an absolute no-no for the Swiss outsiders. It might be a sign of fairness that the English share with the Swiss the threat of economic ruin. This reveals the EU’s real intentions, and it is explained by relating any generosity to expediency. The way the EU will, once it can, proceed with England’s “special case”, is self evident. An elaboration would insult the reader’s intelligence.

Hungary’s, respectively the Visegrád Group’s (V4) case is also pregnant with lessons the British need to consider. The only question is, do they do so now when they are free to act, or later, when shackled.

Budapest and Brussels differ about the management of Muslim/African migration. At issue is, given the EU’s PC-derived unwillingness to protect its boundary, a sovereign national solution.  In fact, the real topic is the future of Europe. The Magyars wish for a federation by independent peoples, dedicated to the protection of the members’ identities. This is seen as a key of any federation that is worth having.

This wish is not accidental nor does it express caprice. The V4 have only recently regained their independence from a foreign power on a global mission. Past colonial status will make its victims either to seek a new and benign master, or steel their resolve to maintain their autonomy.

Obama has stated that Merkel’s invitation to the Muslim world to move to Germany is on the “right side of history”. The entry of masses that claim special status upon arrival, reminds the V4 of their historic invasions. Regardless of the liberal’s multicultural dogma, in the region between Warsaw and Budapest that is a history that floats as well as the balloon of an Israeli-Palestinian conglomerate does.

What had happened? Merkel has induced -oh not again!- an obediently credulous people to jump into a pit. The aftermath revealed that the whole is about what it seemed to be. It is deep and contains much water. Now the Chancellor demands that, to show “solidarity”, Europe shall imbibe water so that her victims can dry out.

Calling resistance to cultural suicide “right-wing extremism” or “Nazi”, will not convince anyone to “convert”, to the “true way”. This road-map is preached from countries that had luckily escaped what made the past nasty. Resisting the fantasies of the self-blinded does not flow from ignorance: It is the product of digested experience dispersed by a “University of Hard Knocks” that is devoid of illusions.

England will vote on the basis of bearable terms that will not be identified as temporary, while she will be subjected to threats to ruin her in case she opts to be disobedient. Staying guarantees that, after a period of grace, the unbearable will be imposed by the class of office holders. In time Britain will lose the little she got as a bait. If England asserts herself, the result will enable the reformist forces to redirect the EU and to connect it to Europe’s peoples. Once that happens, England will probably opt to probe its re-entry. It is England’s choice.

 

 

Comments are closed.